Half Governor Erects Prayer Shield
Tweet
Palin wants the government to mandate prayer.
99 Responses to “Half Governor Erects Prayer Shield”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
To reprise an old joke about Dan Quayle, the quickest way to guarantee universal prayer would be for her to become president.
O M whatever you believe in !
People praying?
What’s next ?
Doing good stuff?
Next thing you know, there will be a Bible in every hotel room!
Prayer’s okay.
Do you agree with the court’s ruling? Separation of Church and State?
Do you agree with separation of church and state? Simple yes or no answer will do.
The prayer shield will go well with the intelligence shield she’s obviously using.
FDS – “Next thing you know, there will be a Bible in every hotel room!”
… or maybe even a Kloran!
Wow frank, you’re displaying a genuinely new degree of stupid today.
She actually claimed the authors of the separation of church and state where against separation of church and state. Whats next, a screed on how much civil rights leaders hate voting rights or feminists being against equal pay for equal work?
isms – that’a Qu’uran .. In Arabia, they’ll cut your head off for that
I don’t think a proclamation that a certain day is a Day of Prayer violates the principal of separation of Church and state, anymore than I believe that a proclamation that a particular Thursday in November is Thanksgiving means I have to eat a turkey.
I believe that the 1st Amendment says what it means, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” P E R I O D
Nothing in there about forbidding prayer, or creches , or under God in the Pledge of Allegiance or in God we trust on our money
Cryin’ won’t help ya, and prayin’ won’t do ya no good.
–Led Zeppelin, “When the Levee Breaks”
The problem isn’t the word “prayer”, it’s the word “mandate”. How would you feel if the government made you pray facing Mecca everyday?
I believe that the 1st Amendment says what it means, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” P E R I O D
Too bad for you that the SCotUS disagrees.
Unless you (erroneously) believe that a belief in the existence of a God is a religion.
Oh no, I definitely intended what I wrote – Kloran.
Thank you, Randy, I know I have derived much solace and inspiration from the plagiarized works of Led Zeppelin.
I am not familiar with the Kloran – tell me more .
I don’t think a proclamation that a certain day is a Day of Prayer violates the principal of separation of Church and state, anymore than I believe that a proclamation that a particular Thursday in November is Thanksgiving means I have to eat a turkey.
I guess we disagree.
I am an atheist, but I celebrate Thanksgiving because I hate turkeys and want a lot of them to die.
I believe that the 1st Amendment says what it means, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” P E R I O D
I agree, but apparently you want to carve out a few exceptions that I do not agree with.
Congress has no business even addressing religion, since doing so is an offense to people like me who do not accept the Sky Fairy or Jahweh, or Allah, or the Norse pantheon as real. Not designating a specific day for prayer does not violate anyone’s First Amendment right to prayer, but designating one certainly DOES violate my atheist right to not having prayer addressed by the government. Merely MENTIONING prayer in this legislative act confers governmental approval of prayer. The government has no business approving or disapproving of prayer.
Funny how the nutwingers don’t want the government to interfere with their lives, but are all in favor of having it interfere with mine by enacting pointless and unConstitutional legislation about gods and goddesses.
This. All of this.
… plagiarized?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kloran
Yes, mambo , Jimmy Page paid and unknown sum of money in settlement to Willie Dixon for stealing Whole Lotta Love … and there’s more
Nonsense. All of this. Nonsense.
well that was way off topic, but interesting.
Just what of this is nonsense and why, Frank?
The link you sent me to indicates that LZ wrote the music but Dixon wrote the lyrics. Interesting. I did not know that.
Are you both seriously suggesting that the Framers added an Amendment to the Constitution which would protect atheists from hearing about God, but also prevent the public practice of religion under any circumstances?
Try for a moment to place yourself in the Colonies in 1787, and in the minds of one of those debaters, and ask yourself, “What in hell would they do that for?”
Are you both seriously suggesting that the Framers added an Amendment to the Constitution which would provide atheists with protection of their unbelief, and at the same time not reserve to believers their right to practice their religion?
Try for a moment to place yourself in the Colonies in 1787, and in the minds of one of those debaters, and ask yourself, “What in hell would they do that for?”
Are you both seriously suggesting that the Framers added an Amendment to the Constitution which would provide atheists with protection of their unbelief, and at the same time not reserve to believers their right to practice their religion?
Frank, that is clearly not what I am suggesting. This is a clear misrepresentation, a dichotomy that does not exist.
Believers have a right to practice their religion. They do not have a right to have it sanctioned by the government. The government should stay the fuck out of religious matters. It’s not the first fight I would pick, but I would absolutely like to see them drop “In God We Trust” from the currency. It’s exclusionary. Having nothing, absolutely no text whatsoever, in its place does nothing to persecute believers.
Try to think like an atheist for a second and try to understand why you might not want the government sanctioning the “existence” of a God.
Frank: Nothing in there about forbidding prayer, or creches , or under God in the Pledge of Allegiance or in God we trust on our money
But what if someone doesn’t believe in God?
Why should they, to recite the pledge, be either forced to say something they don’t believe, or forced to not say the entire thing?
Why should they accept a government, which is supposed to represent them, declaring on their behalf that “We” trust in God when clearly they aren’t part of the We?
Why should government at any level have any role in religious beliefs?
Jimmy Page included a lot of influences in his music, and it is true he took a few “verbatim.” It doesn’t mean he can’t play.
How lucky were the Yardbirds? Jeff Beck stepped in when Clapton quit, and Jimmy Page switched from bass to guitar and took over for Beck.
Well, there WAS that Keith Relf electrocution accident…
Frank:Are you both seriously suggesting that the Framers added an Amendment to the Constitution which would protect atheists from hearing about God, but also prevent the public practice of religion under any circumstances?
Making a pretty big jump there, Frank. Since when did saying something should not be forced on the unwilling turn into declaring the willing were not allowed to do it? Please don’t argue against something nobody is arguing for.
You want to pray? Absolutely fine. Go ahead. Do it whenever the mood strikes you. In your car. In your home, church. Hell, even on the local public street corner (1st Amendment and all that).
Just don’t insist the government declares a Day of Prayer.
Frank: Unless you (erroneously) believe that a belief in the existence of a God is a religion.
You mean Catholics, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, etc etc aren’t religious?
Unless you (erroneously) believe that a belief in the existence of a God is a religion.
Of course not. The word for that is “deism.” Religion is when two or more deists get together and start a club for the purpose of talking about these beliefs.
Here is how I see religion. Religion is when someone else gets to tell a deist how to relate to the god or goddesses or pantheons that he or she believes in, and claims to know what those gods can do to people if they don’t do what the gods’ spokespeople require.
Obedience seems to be the key teaching of all religions. Funny that.
I have some questions about this whole “prayer shield” thing. How many hits from the disrupters of a Klingon bird-of-prey can one withstand, and can you use a cloaking device with it on?
I remember a scene in Carl Sagan’s book Contact where a scientist was talking with a person who believed in God about their different beliefs. They were standing near a large pendulum and the scientist said she’d be willing to pull the heavy weight back to the tip of her nose and let go, because her belief was that that it would swing away and back but would not swing back any closer than the tip of her nose. She believed this as fervently as the other person believed in the power of prayer.
She then asked the other person if they’d be willing to do the same, but step a couple inches forward and pray to God to shorten the swing.
Of course, when their God(s) fail to do anything the faithful can always fall back on the idea that sometimes the answer to a prayer is “No.” But the non-believer doesn’t have to fall back to anything that can’t be demonstrably shown.
Frank: Nothing in there about forbidding prayer, or creches , or under God in the Pledge of Allegiance or in God we trust on our money
But what if someone doesn’t believe in God?
Why should they, to recite the pledge, be either forced to say something they don’t believe, or forced to not say the entire thing?
Why should they accept a government, which is supposed to represent them, declaring on their behalf that “We” trust in God when clearly they aren’t part of the We?
I’m certain if the money said “We don’t trust in God” you’d object to it. It’s a statement of something you don’t believe, and it’s being promoted by the government. Why should an atheist feel any different about “In God we trust”?
Why should government at any level have any role in religious beliefs?
People who believe that there was no Moon landing are not compelled to believe that there was a moon landing. I just read the home page of an outfit that believes in a stationary earth (!!) I don’t think even cavemen believed in a stationary earth.
Nobody is compelled to believe anything. I remember at my first AA meeting, they ended the meeting with the “Protestant” Our Father ( For thine is the kingdom, etc.) I thought, “Oh crap! It’s the Protestant one!” But was I offended that they had nor considered the sensibilities of Catholics? For a few meetings I didn’t say the ending , and after awhile I did – no biggie.
The word you’re looking for is not obedience, but discipline – a way of doing things.
It is not disobedient to follow the Jewish faith if you are Jewish; it is disobedient not to keep kosher. Not so for Catholics who can eat a cheeseburger anytime they want, except on a day when they can’t meat. They don’t cease being Catholics the minute they eat a bologna sandwich on a holy day.
I am sure that if I spent my entire life spending money that said on it, “I’m not sure I trust in God”, I probably would have learned to deal with it.
I remember as a child having to learn to add “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance – in a public school. I don’t think it bothered anyone, but I was very little.
Why should government at any level have any role in religious beliefs?
I think that if you don’t think they should , there is no satisfactory answer, because to me it is self-evident, and to you it is not.
You’re welcome, shitehead…I couldn’t remember offhand that the original was by Kansas Joe McCoy and Memphis Minnie.
My sentiment remains the same: all the prayers in the universe won’t save Cut’n'Run Sally from burning in hell. The Bitch is now about four hours beyond her allotted 15 minutes of fame, and she’s long since started to smell rotten.
40 something grandmothers being the moral police
Maybe one day there’ll be a thread here that doesn’t entirely follow a bunc of regulars picking apart the ramblings of some moronic troll.
But I doubt it.
Interesting that Palin is Pro-sorcery; I’m not sure she was actually counting on support from the Secret Hermetic Orders, but I suppose every little bit counts.
Is it me, or is Conservative Christianity slowly transforming into a cargo cult?
It’s been a favorite pastime of mine, but you know… I think I’m done. I’ve already declared a personal, indefinite moratorium on responding to Supreme Troll #1, Dennis. And much earlier today I was going to explain to Frank just exactly why he’s a damned moron because of his latest comments on this thread, but then I just decided to stab myself in the eye with a fork instead.
Not really, but I did decide there was no point in it. No amount of reasoned commentary ever changes their minds. So screw it.
Is it me, or is Conservative Christianity slowly transforming into a cargo cult?
Turning into? Haha, that’s a good one.
Zzzzzz.
If pathological attention seekers do not receive attention at one place, they will go elsewhere to feed the beast. Go figure.
God isn’t a magic trick you just whip out at parties.
Frank, I was recently working on-site at the local HIV clinic. A CA meeting was being held in the room next to the one in which we were working, and at the end of the meeting, I could here the group reciting the Lord’s Prayer. To me, that would be a biggie.
A couple of years ago, there was a story in the local paper about a prison ministry group that had started in-prison AA meetings. The leader described what they were doing and noted that ‘Jesus is our higher power.’ A few days later, there was a letter in the paper from the AA national office congratulating the group on their work but pointing out that if they were automatically telling members Jesus was their higher power, AA couldn’t sanction the meetings. Continued luck in your recovery.
Yes It is
No , what I am saying is that “religion’s” etymology is from the Latin “to reconnect”. While religion presupposes a belief in God, a belief in God does not presuppose belonging to a religion. For many years, I believed that God made the world , and then walked away. I was a baptized Catholic, but I certainly wasn’t practicing any religion.
God has a fascinating cloaking device – it’s called human pride. And like any other of His attributes, He can take an infinite number of hits for an eternity.
“You cannot persuade someone who does not believe, to believe; you cannot persuade someone who believes, to not believe.”
?
But, see, the thing is you shouldn’t have to “learn to deal with it.”
Yes, there are LOTS of things we do have to learn to deal with. Life isn’t fair. People are irritating and stupid. Etc.
But having the gov’t tell us that there is one more proper view than another in matters of personal beliefs isn’t one of them.
I think that if you don’t think they should , there is no satisfactory answer, because to me it is self-evident, and to you it is not.
Is that wingnut for “I don’t like having to consider your question so I’m going to claim it’s you has the problem and run away now.”?
And that, ladies and gents, is how you celebrate a closed mind as if it were a thing to be proud of.
So you’re saying God is really really arrogant? What?
I probably would have learned to deal with it.
Considering that this is coming from a guy still whining about things that happened over 40 years ago, no you wouldn’t.
Human weakness has a debilitating and exploitative device – it’s called ‘God.’
Like all forms of frailty, this particular human weakness is constantly under siege by those who stand to gain by imposing this concept on others.
This planet would be better off without ‘God’ in any guise, especially as people seem utterly incapable of accepting that as a product of human imagination, it is no more relevant or legitimate to non believers as the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.
Yet I don’t recall a single episode of war, death or misery in all of human history that resulted from people of different cultures arising from their disparate interpretations of a giant rabbit or a jolly fat home invader, as has so often been the case with ‘God.’
Perhaps, as in the case of the Easter Bunny or Santa, we might be better off as a species if we simply outgrew ‘God’ in the same way that a 19 year old who shows up on your doorstep on Halloween with a pillow case full of candy but no costume deserves to be greeted with ‘Aren’t you a little old for this bub?’
‘…you cannot persuade someone who believes, to not believe.’
Not so; people used to believe that a microscopic and completely formed human child was contained within every individual male sperm.
Science proved that this was not the case.
People used to believe the Sun revolved around the Earth; again science proved the reality was the Earth revolved around the Sun.
If you are referring specifically to religion, there will always be those who will cling to their beliefs regardless of evidence which eviscerates it, but that should hardly be a point of pride that someone could be so stubborn and narrow minded as to choose fantasy over reality.
That being said, choosing to believe in any particular form of religion is as much a product of one’s upbringing, geography and culture as it is about faith.
Choosing NOT to believe however, is not dependent on any factor besides individual will.
It’s all about respect; for those of faith and those who do not believe. The endless religious conflicts which have plagued this planet for eons constantly arise from a LACK of respect and little else.
So, I guess Thomas Jefferson didn’t know what he was talking about when he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
But, of course, Frank and Sarah no better.
Why should government at any level have any role in religious beliefs?
The self-evident part is that the government already has a role in religious beliefs: Our legal code is a moral one , based on ancient religious laws, commandments and codes. Most of us respect clergy of all faiths. Many businesses are closed on Sunday – 50 years ago, nearly all were. Many people have expressed the wish that “God Bless America” become our national anthem. The very first Amendment to the Constitution ( which was a response to the popular feeling, “what about fixing all the things that were broken under British rule?”) was to protect the right of people to practice their own religion freely. In my opinion, this made the government de facto referee in any interreligious struggle.
Zython, your insult is noted with the hearty chuckle , and cool derision it deserves …. Get to bed.
Crusty / Mambo … Occasionally it develops that conservatives actually get heard here … On left wing blogs , conservatives are usually cursed and derided right off the page . That happens here, but we hold our own. And , occasionally, there is a healthy dialogue.
On the right wing blogs , there are a few predictable reactions to left wing commenters: “Please go away”, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” , or “You’re just a liberal!”.
Oliver’s blog is virtually unique .
Could we stick with the thread, please ?
“You cannot persuade someone who does not believe in God, to believe in God; you cannot persuade someone who believes in God, to not believe in God.”
Simply repeating this bit of bullshit doesn’t make it any more true.
Yes, I know – many people have repeated it in your hearing, and they said so with *such conviction*, and you, with your complete lack of critical thinking, have blindly accepted that.
But it’s still bullshit.
Sorry Frank… that’s the truth.
Choosing NOT to believe however, is not dependent on any factor besides individual will.
So you are asserting that being an agnostic or an atheist is not a “product of one’s upbringing, geography and culture as it is about faith”?
I beg to differ.
The very first Amendment to the Constitution … was to protect the right of people to practice their own religion freely. In my opinion, this made the government de facto referee in any interreligious struggle.
What? How does your conclusion follow from your premise? The First Amendment says the federal government doesn’t mix in religion, so that makes the federal government the de facto referee? I don’t get it.
I notice that the people who like to talk about God the most are the people who are least likely to tell you what they think God is.
Now, now, he is correct in a MS Tech support kind of way, our law comes from English common and statue law, most of which itself derives from Anglo-Saxon law and Roman law,
both having pagan religious influences in either case, not Christian…………………
Seriously, Frank, you are way out of your depth when it comes to the law. Please, go to law school, practice law for 20+ years, and then maybe – maybe – I’ll listen to you lecture the rest of us about the law. In the meantime, leave it to those of us who actually have some expertise in the field.
‘So you are asserting that being an agnostic or an atheist is not a “product of one’s upbringing, geography and culture as it is about faith”?’
That’s precisely what I’m asserting.
Is it your assertion that agnostics and atheists arrive at their particular beliefs solely through parental or cultural indoctrination?
Most people I know who do not believe in the concept of ‘God’ did not come to this position as a result of their upbringing, but rather by recognizing the inherent hypocrisies and intellectually stunted philosophies that are at the root of human religious mythology, from their own exploration of theology.
Of course there are exceptions to the rule; I’m sure there are many parents who instruct their children that ‘God’ is no more real or relevant than Leprechauns, but I seriously doubt that they constitute a majority of households from which atheists and agnostics emerge.
Many people simply prefer to examine something on its own merits and determine for themselves if there is anything of value for them to experience from it.
How would you explain the globally shrinking numbers of those who identify themselves as ‘believers?’ Is this the result of domestic indoctrination, or are young people just not buying into the mythology any longer?
No answers? Typical.
Frank: The self-evident part is that the government already has a role in religious beliefs: Our legal code is a moral one , based on ancient religious laws, commandments and codes.
I disagree that it is “self-evident” or that having laws which are similar to, or even “based on”, ancient religious ones is the same as the gov’t having a role in religion.
Saying that a certain code of behavior is a good idea is not the same as promoting the religion that came up with the code. Having the gov’t say “Yes, that’s a good idea. We should not kill or steal from each other.” is a far cry from insisting the gov’t therefore has a role in saying that there is or is not a God.
Many people have expressed the wish that “God Bless America” become our national anthem.
And nothing prevents it from being a popular song or played at the start of ballgames, should the team’s owner wish to do so.
But that is not the same as having Congress declared it to be the official song that represents the country.
The very first Amendment to the Constitution ( which was a response to the popular feeling, “what about fixing all the things that were broken under British rule?”) was to protect the right of people to practice their own religion freely. In my opinion, this made the government de facto referee in any interreligious struggle.
And the referee is not supposed to take sides. Is not supposed to play favorites. Is not supposed to rule in favor of those who have a certain opinion in personal matters over others of a different opinion. Is not supposed to say “Yes, God exists and we all believe in him.”
Choosing NOT to believe however, is not dependent on any factor besides individual will.
Hmmm, tricky, that aspect of it. How is choosing NOT to believe in a god different from choosing TO believe there isn’t one?
If someone tends to follow a particular religion due to influences of their “upbringing, geography and culture”, how is the “non-believer” who was raised in a secular community not similarly influenced by those factors?
“not dependent on any factor besides individual will.”
I just don’t see it. You’re saying the way Group A came to their beliefs is influenced by different factors than the way Group B came to theirs.
Is it your assertion that agnostics and atheists arrive at their particular beliefs solely through parental or cultural indoctrination?
Solely? No. But that the agnostic becomes an agnostic due to parental and cultural influences? Yes.
A child raised in a Catholic (or Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist or ____) household and community grows up to be Catholic/Jewish/Muslim/Buddhist/____ does so because of those household and community influences.
But a child raised in an agnostic (or atheist or humanist or secular humanist or ____) household and community grows up to be agnostic/atheist/humanist/____ completely separate from those household and community influences?
I don’t see how you can support that argument.
Simply repeating this bit of bullshit doesn’t make it any more true.
Yes, I know – many people have repeated it in your hearing, and they said so with *such conviction*, and you, with your complete lack of critical thinking, have blindly accepted that.
But it’s still bullshit.
Sorry Frank… that’s the truth.
So what I say is bullshit , because you say it is, and what you say is the truth, because you say it is.
How conveeeeeeeeeeeeeeenient!
“both having pagan religious influences in either case, not Christian”
Guess again … a) Pagan is not non-religious, and b) A great Roman emperor of Constantinople, Justinian, refined many of the laws of the day and collected them all into one work. This is known as the Justinian Code and it was completed in AD 529. (a full 200 years after Constantine had converted to Christianity)
Referees enforce the rules of the game, without playing in it…
He is not supposed to say “Yes, God exists and we all believe in him.”
Not really. Why can’t we be a Christian nation, in which some people are not Christians?
Any nation with majority rule, and respect for the minority is going to have to be some kind of nation: Democratic, capitalistic, freedom loving, or something, where a minority would be free to disagree.
“The rest of us”?
Referees enforce the rules of the game, without playing in it…
And the first (and only) rule of this game is: The government isn’t allowed to make any rules.
Your basic fallacy is still undefended, Frank. That America’s laws have a basis in ancient religious laws does not translate to government having a role in religion.
Why can’t we be a Christian nation, in which some people are not Christians?
As some people are not Christians, why does America have to be a Christian nation at all? For your own comment, it’s clearly not an accurate description.
Why can’t America be a Muslim nation, in which some people are not Muslim?
Why is it necessary to define the country in terms of religion at all? Why not say America is a “Lawful Nation” in that it’s one run by the rule of law? THOSE are the things which the country proclaims do apply equally to everyone.
Why can’t we be a Christian nation, in which some people are not Christians?
Oh! I know this! I’ll give you a hint: It rhymes with Schmirst Schmamendment.
Choosing NOT to believe however, is not dependent on any factor besides individual will.
I will disagree with this point. When someone is a nonbeliever in spite of the fact that so many around them are believers, I think that it is an indication of personal strength. I would say that nonbelievers are generally more open-minded, more critical, and more understanding/trusting of science and rationality than believers. However, I see no reason that they should have come to be that way through qualitatively different means than the way religious folk came to be (with respect to upbringing, environment, etc.).
Granted, there’s likely an ocean of quantitative difference between the two with respect to the specifics of their environments, but that’s besides the point.
Saying that a certain code of behavior is a good idea is not the same as promoting the religion that came up with the code
I would agree. Perhaps I should have said “denomination,” which is closer to the meaning suggested by the First Amendment.
And therein lies the problem. Whereas, an “establishment of religion” in 1787 was a denomination, we have a tendency nowadays to think of the word “establishment” as an organization or institution set into place (“established”).
Yeah, I’d say 22 years practicing law in the largest unified court system in the United States gives me what I’d call genuine expertise in the field. And what you’ve said so far about the sources of the law and what the First Amendment means are just plan wrong.
‘How is choosing NOT to believe in a god different from choosing TO believe there isn’t one?’
Choosing not to believe in ‘God’ doesn’t necessarily mean denying the possibility of the existence of ‘God,’ though obviously not to the extent that the possibility itself is sufficient to convince one of ‘God’ as a metaphysical reality, whereas choosing to believe there is no ‘God,’ denies even the possibility of such an entity.
‘I just don’t see it. You’re saying the way Group A came to their beliefs is influenced by different factors than the way Group B came to theirs.’
Indeed I am; let’s suppose that you and I were born and raised in Salt Lake City, Utah. There is an above average likelihood that one or both of us would be raised as Mormons, by Mormons in a Mormon community. In that context, how likely would you suppose that one or both of us would be encouraged to question or oppose the teachings of the Mormon Church from which we were both exposed from birth? The same would be true of a devout Catholic, Jewish or Muslim upbringing anywhere around the world.
Those who are brought up in a devoutly religious home are not generally apt to critique or scrutinize their faith, and are even less likely to reject it outright, much less take an even more diametric position of questioning the very existence of ‘God’ or the legitimacy of religion itself.
Individuals who are reared in a secular environment on the other hand, are far more likely to question the existence of ‘God’ and the nature of religion in general, as they are not bound by the confines of a particular faith which might brand them as blasphemous or heretical for even daring to pose such questions.
Granted I’m generalizing, and will admit that if you are raised with secular values, this will obviously influence one’s mindset regarding theology, but it is still one’s individual interpretation, free from religious indoctrination, that can evolve from one’s ruminations on the subject, and not as the result of sermons or scripture.
I hope that clarifies my position somewhat.
‘However, I see no reason that they should have come to be that way through qualitatively different means than the way religious folk came to be (with respect to upbringing, environment, etc.)’
As I’ve said, I’m generalizing, but in essence I believe(and it seems you agree)that a secular upbringing allows far more analysis and critique of religion and ‘God’ than is commonly seen in a non secular upbringing, where such examinations are not encouraged, whereas blind acceptance is.
‘But a child raised in an agnostic (or atheist or humanist or secular humanist or ____) household and community grows up to be agnostic/atheist/humanist/____ completely separate from those household and community influences?’
As I said, there are certainly some parents who disseminate their atheist/agnostic beliefs to their children, but I don’t believe that this is the vast majority of households from which atheists or agnostics are reared.
None of my friends practice any form of religion, yet few of them would consider themselves atheists; we’re all humble enough to admit that we couldn’t possibly be CERTAIN that ‘God’ doesn’t exist, but merely that the various faiths that preach metaphysical certitude of the existence of a higher being have not convinced us they are any more likely to be right than we are.
ALL OF US however were raised by Christian or Jewish parents and all attended Sunday School or Hebrew School as kids, until such time that we made it clear to our parents that we simply weren’t buying it.
For myself, that moment came when I asked my Sunday School teacher if it was true what my Jewish friend had told me; that Jesus was in fact a Jew. This was something I had NEVER heard mentioned in over a year of Sunday School sermons.
The look on the poor woman’s face said it all; she had NEVER been asked that before, much less from a precocious six year old. After stammering for a few seconds, I’ll never forget the sudden rise of color to her face as she scowled at me and ordered me to ‘GET OUT AND THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU’VE SAID!’
I thought about it, and couldn’t see why she simply couldn’t have answered my question. After relating the incident to my parents, who burst out laughing during the car ride home, they told me, yes, Jesus was Jewish.
That was the last Sunday School class my brothers and I ever attended.
What you’re saying doesn’t make sense to me. “Congress shall make no law respecting a denomination, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …”
Huh? That just doesn’t scan.
Seems clear to me (and I believe I stand with the vast majority of folks who have read and spoken about what this amendment means, including those who were contemporaneous with it’s authors) that the two parts complement each other in a push/pull combination. Congress can’t promote a religion, or oppose one. Substituting your explanation for what “establishment” means doesn’t work in the context.
Back to the main point, that American laws may have some basis on older codes from religions does not in any way mean the gov’t has a role in religion. “The self-evident part is that the government already has a role in religious beliefs” is neither self-evident or true.
Don’t tell me, let me guess, Frank. You didn’t even bother to think about the meaning of the word “bullshit” before answering, right?
Because you’d rather say something that strikes you as sounding good than in actually *thinking* and looking for truth, right?
Those who are brought up in a devoutly religious home are not generally apt to critique or scrutinize their faith, and are even less likely to reject it outright, much less take an even more diametric position of questioning the very existence of ‘God’ or the legitimacy of religion itself.
I’m not sure how likely or not it is, but going with your thesis for a moment, how would things be any different for a person raised in a devoutly agnostic home? It seems to me that you’re claiming someone surrounded by a people of religious beliefs grows up sharing those beliefs because they were raised in them. (A proposition I don’t disagree with.) But someone surrounded by people of secular beliefs who ends up sharing those beliefs does not do so because of those surrounding influences, but due solely to their own will. (The conclusion I just can’t agree with.)
And the basis for this distinction in the effect of influence is what beliefs the person has as an adult, not due to any actual difference in the influences. Believe thing A, it’s because you were influenced growing up. Believe thing B, it’s because were completely uninfluenced by others growing up.
Might the individual brought up in a devoutly secular environment not feel a similar pressure to not critique or scrutinize their “faith”. Less likely, for example, to question whether science has all the answers, much less take a diametric position of questioning the non-existence of ‘God’? “Perhaps there is something to be learned from the religious folks. Perhaps there is something to what they say.” would be an analogous heresy.
And the basis for this distinction in the effect of influence is what beliefs the person has as an adult, not due to any actual difference in the influences?. Believe thing A, it’s because you were influenced growing up; believe thing B, it’s because were completely uninfluenced by others growing up?.
Just to make it clear which side I’m taking on this, there should have been question marks in there.
I agree with the idea (lacking any data at hand to back up this opinion) that more folks from religious households “leave the faith” than folks from secular households “join the faith”. To me, the stories presented as facts in most religions with which I’m familiar are so obviously just stories that I can easily see why one would stop believing them as one grows older and becomes more capable of independent thought. “God” left with the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
But I don’t agree at all with the idea that someone from a secular environment isn’t influenced by that environment. Actually, if we assume someone raised in faith is more likely to shrug off those influences and beliefs than someone raised in secular, then it would seem the “faithful” environment has less influence. After all, it’s the influence that was shaken off and left behind.
b) A great Roman emperor of Constantinople, Justinian, refined many of the laws of the day and collected them all into one work. This is known as the Justinian Code and it was completed in AD 529. (a full 200 years after Constantine had converted to Christianity)
Which has what to do with anything?
That was the last Sunday School class my brothers and I ever attended.
Yet you continued to go to a parochial school for 14 years? So no school on Sunday, but Monday-Friday…?
‘But someone surrounded by people of secular beliefs who ends up sharing those beliefs does not do so because of those surrounding influences, but due solely to their own will. ‘
As I stated SEVERAL times, my opinion is a generalization to be sure, but let’s be honest here.
How many persons raised in a specific faith do you know who have abandoned that faith because they were encouraged to question or reject it by their parents, or the clergy of that faith? I know of none.
How many persons raised in an agnostic or atheistic household do you personally know that were specifically taught to become non believers by their parents? I know of none.
My point has been simply that a religious upbringing in which people are raised is not one that has historically promoted an environment in which questioning or rejecting said faith is encouraged.
Do people who have grown up with religion as a central component of their lives reject their faith? Of course, but not as a general rule. If you are raised as a Jew, a Christian a Muslim or a Buddhist, you are more than likely to remain a practicing Jew, Christian, Muslim or Buddhist.
You seem to be suggesting that an atheist or agnostic upbringing is responsible for the majority of those who hold these views, which I disagree with; as I’ve stated, I know of no one who currently shares these beliefs because they were actively imposed on them by their parents.
Does this mean it NEVER happens? Certainly not, but only that it is not the majority of cases. Far more individuals come to believe that atheism or agnosticism better reflect their opinions of religion, the nature of ‘God’ and faith through individual exploration of these themes rather than via parental instruction.
None of which really means shit however, as my point all along has been that were all of us to demonstrate more tolerance and respect of our disparate views, there would be far less strife and conflict arising from religious differences, which have far too often amounted to little more than ‘My God is better than your God.’
Where did you get the idea I attended a parochial school? The Lord’s prayer was the only form of religious musings I was exposed to in public school.
Yet even at a very young age, I thought it was bullshit and inappropriate in a place of learning, and should not have been something mandated as part of the curriculum, no matter how small a component of the day it was.
If students want to pray during school, that’s fine by me, but I don’t believe the state has the right to include prayer as part of the academic structure, because I don’t believe it serves any purpose in being there.
As I said:
‘Granted I’m generalizing, and will admit that if you are raised with secular values, this will obviously influence one’s mindset regarding theology, but it is still one’s individual interpretation, free from religious indoctrination, that can evolve from one’s ruminations on the subject, and not as the result of sermons or scripture.’
He was responding to what I wrote about Roman Law.
Justinian gave orders to collect legal materials of various kinds into several new codes, spurred on by the revival of interest in the study of Roman law in the Middle Ages. This revived Roman law, in turn, became the foundation of law in all civil law jurisdictions. The provisions of the Corpus Juris Civilis also influenced the Canon Law of the church since it was said that ecclesia vivit lege romana — the church lives under Roman law.[3]
Anyhoo, there was a lot of stuff that was specifically Christian to it:
200 years of Christianity were hardly enough to go against the nearly 1000 years of Roman tradition before that, and did you notice that the religious Corpus Juris Civilis portion aren’t operative anymore?